|
A lot of folks got angry over my diary, "Obama's Somnambulant Embrace of Jingoistic Militarism". In doing so, they inadvertently helped illustrated the point I was trying to make: that Obama's uncritical parroting of standard military-praising rhetoric is politically quite dangerous. Most of those commenting seemed to be utterly oblivious to the fact that I was trying to talk about language, how it shapes our perceptions, how it hides or reveals aspects of the truth. Instead, they were fixated on the object of the language-the military-or better still, on me for daring either to criticize Obama and/or to criticize the troops.
All of this behavior exemplifies aspects of how hegemony works, how it makes it impossible for us to communicate clearly with one another, instead contending endlessly with distorted and misleading assumptions built into what we take to be our "common sense" understanding.
What is hegemony? It's ideology in drag as common sense. To reinforce hegemony, one does not have to explicitly say "I agree with the hegemonic position that XYZ." It's enough to simply repeat a piece of conventional wisdom, particularly in a situation where a more thoughtful, critical observation had the potential to spark critical reflection, even dialogue. And this is exactly what Obama did at his "100 days" press conference, responding to the question:
During these first 100 days, what has surprised you the most about this office? Enchanted you the most from serving in this office? Humbled you the most? And troubled you the most?
By saying, in part:
Enchanted? Enchanted. I will tell you that when I -- when I meet our servicemen and -women, enchanted is probably not the word I would use. (LAUGHTER) But I am so profoundly impressed and grateful to them for what they do. They're really good at their job. They are willing to make extraordinary sacrifices on our behalf. They do so without complaint. They are fiercely loyal to this country.
|
One of the folks attacking me, Querent, wrote about that quote:
This quote in no way "lets the Republicans off the hook for decades of slandering Democrats' patriotism". There is no connection between what he said and what you said it meant. Republicans are not mentioned. Neither are Democrats. The absence of a connection is so obvious that I find it unbelievable that you think there is one.
The connection, of course, is framework of hegemonic discourse, the framework in which only Republicans and conservatives love the troops, and loving the troops is synonymous with sending them off to be killed fighting wars that conservative chickenhawks insist on comparing to fighting off Hitler (whom the conservatives of the 1930s looked at with admiration).
To Querent, the very subject, not just of this one diary, but of the vast majority of what I'm writing about this weekend is quite literally invisible.
There is no framework of background assumptions that everyone has to negotiate. Everyone knows that!
Then you say it "tacitly endorses the jingoistic hegemonic discourse they've employed to radically subvert the very essence of our national identity as a republic." It doesn't. It's not related to jingoistic, hegemonic discourse in any way, except in your overheated imagination.
Of course that's absurd. Praising the bravery, loyalty and dedication of troops is one of the most time-honored ways of evading any question about the morality of what they're being used for. War-mongers have been doing this for thousands of years. And when someone who is not a warmonger does this, they are nontheless reinforcing the hegemony of warmonger discourse.
And that's just exactly what Obama did.
None of those words or concepts appear there, nor does anything about our national identity. You interpolated all of that. And you completely misinterpreted what the President said.
Again, it's not necessary for any specific term from the hegemonic discourse to appear in any particular passage. That's the nature of hegemony: invoke part of it, and you invoke the whole. That's the whole point.
Let me clarify a couple of things. I never supported the Iraq war. At this point in time, I can't really see much point in resuming the Afghan war, either, and I am not in any way in favor of bombing anybody with drone missles, let alone wedding parties and other innocent civilians. I am also not willing to give the President a pass on either of these stupid policies.
In which case, having seen through all of these specifics, Querent ought to be able to see through the whole, right?
Well, not so much. In fact, that's why Gramsci had to develop the concept of hegemonic discourse in the first place.
Furthermore, my saying you were full of shit was not an indication that I was "upset". I wasn't upset.
The fact is that what the man said, and what you said it meant, indicated, implied, or "tacitly endorsed" are totally and completely unconnected, and what he said did not, in fact, mean, indicate, imply or "tacitly endorse" any of the stuff you said it did. You pulled a bogus connection between the two out of thin air, and tried to present them as synonymous. You can argue that the "context" provides the connection, but it doesn't. You just made it up.
Again, remember, what Obama did--praising the troops, and not even in response to a question about them, but TWISTING the question he was asked--is a time-honored warmonger tactic to distract attention and discussion from what the troops are being used to do. I did not invent that. There is nothing arbitrary in relying on that long history to consider the implications of what Obama is saying.
And this:
Stuff like this makes you look like a loony. When you then try to defend it with condescending remarks about the education, literacy, or ability to reason of people who point out the fatuousness of your remarks, you look like an ego-crazed loony. If that's the way you want to present yourself, knock yourself out. But don't be surprised when you lose the respect of people who otherwise agree with you. Like me.
That's simply a direct expression of how hegemony is supposed to work: It defines common sense. And anyone who questions it, who speaks against, must be crazy--" a loony"--"an ego-crazed loony".
Such is the power of hegemony. |
STATE BLOGS
